Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, are you seriously suggesting that you can think without engaging your brain?

No; I'm saying Determinism requires us to believe brain is all...so there is no mind, and for that matter, no you.

This leads to a deeper problem: every instance of thought, decision, or awareness we’ve ever observed is tied to the functioning of a physical brain.

"Tied to" isn't what Determinism requires. It requires you to say "identical with, and nothing else but."

Your suggestion creates a false dilemma: that neurons firing means there’s no "you," only neurons.

No, that's literallly true, if Determinism is right. All of us are just causal beings caught in a causal nexus...and your identity is no more special than that of a rock, a shoe or a mountain goat.

Lots of things disappear if Determinism is true: mind, consciousness, choice, morals, values, beliefs, identity, self, truth, science...lots of things. They all get reduced to the mere "epiphenomena" of the brain doing its physical-causal thing.

Neurons firing are how "you" think;

There's no you anymore. There are only neurons being causally fired by external, physical causes. Nothing arrests these impulses, or assesses them, or makes any decision at all about which will be acted on. And you are no more important than any other fragment of the indifferent world, merely dancing to its causal tune.

Without them, there’s no thinking, no decision-making, no awareness.

Hooray! You've figured it out.

So, I ask again: are you arguing that thought can occur without the brain,

Your question had nothing to do with what I said, but rather was drawn from your own unwarranted inferences, I must suppose. I've never said that at any point. All I've said is that brain is not ALL that's going on.

However, I've done you the courtesy of clarifying above, anyway.

[Alexiev]

"If you are the smartest person in the room, you are in the wrong room." Confucius

[BigMike]

Immanuel, are you seriously suggesting that you can think without engaging your brain?

No; I'm saying Determinism requires us to believe brain is all...so there is no mind, and for that matter, no you.

This leads to a deeper problem: every instance of thought, decision, or awareness we’ve ever observed is tied to the functioning of a physical brain.

"Tied to" isn't what Determinism requires. It requires you to say "identical with, and nothing else but."

Your suggestion creates a false dilemma: that neurons firing means there’s no "you," only neurons.

No, that's literallly true, if Determinism is right. All of us are just causal beings caught in a causal nexus...and your identity is no more special than that of a rock, a shoe or a mountain goat.

Lots of things disappear if Determinism is true: mind, consciousness, choice, morals, values, beliefs, identity, self, truth, science...lots of things. They all get reduced to the mere "epiphenomena" of the brain doing its physical-causal thing.

Neurons firing are how "you" think;

There's no you anymore. There are only neurons being causally fired by external, physical causes. Nothing arrests these impulses, or assesses them, or makes any decision at all about which will be acted on. And you are no more important than any other fragment of the indifferent world, merely dancing to its causal tune.

Without them, there’s no thinking, no decision-making, no awareness.

Hooray! You've figured it out.

So, I ask again: are you arguing that thought can occur without the brain,

Your question had nothing to do with what I said, but rather was drawn from your own unwarranted inferences, I must suppose. I've never said that at any point. All I've said is that brain is not ALL that's going on.

However, I've done you the courtesy of clarifying above, anyway.

Immanuel, your beliefs lead to conclusions so absurd they border on self-parody. Let’s follow your logic: you seem to argue that while the brain is necessary for thinking, it’s somehow not sufficient—that a non-physical "mind" is doing the actual thinking, orchestrating the neurons like some invisible conductor. Yet, you refuse to explain how this conductor interacts with the orchestra. Does your non-physical mind float above the laws of physics, waving its immaterial baton to make atoms and neurons dance?

If that were true, it would mean you could think without a brain—because if the mind is independent, why tether it to a physical organ at all? Could you ponder metaphysics if your brain were removed? Could your mind push neurons around in a jar on a lab bench? If your position were correct, brain damage wouldn’t impair thinking, memory, or identity. Yet every stroke, every brain injury, every neurodegenerative disease screams otherwise. The idea of thought without the brain is as absurd as imagining music playing without an instrument or a radio signal without an antenna.

Your insistence that determinism erases "you" because it ties identity to physical processes is equally ludicrous. Are you saying "you" vanish when the physical basis of your thoughts is understood? By that logic, we should deny our lungs are responsible for breathing or our stomachs for digestion—because surely a "non-physical" force must be doing the work. If a "you" cannot exist as part of the physical world, then where do you exist? In some magical, undetectable dimension?

Here’s the real consequence of your belief: it reduces thought to a supernatural event, divorced from evidence and accountability. If your immaterial mind controls neurons but isn’t bound by physical causation, then why do substances like alcohol, anesthesia, or medication so reliably alter thought? If your "mind" isn’t just a product of the brain, why does its function degrade in Alzheimer’s or after head trauma? Are you seriously proposing that neurons fire in response to some mystical input that science just hasn’t stumbled upon yet? That’s not reasoning—it’s fantasy.

Your perspective doesn’t just strain credibility; it’s incompatible with reality. If the brain and its physical processes are irrelevant to thought, then your argument collapses into pure absurdity, where neurons fire for no reason, actions happen without cause, and minds float free of the bodies that house them. It’s an idea so divorced from the observable world that it’s indistinguishable from a fairy tale.

[Immanuel Can]

...you seem to argue that while the brain is necessary for thinking, it’s somehow not sufficient—that a non-physical "mind" is doing the actual thinking, orchestrating the neurons like some invisible conductor.

That's your analogy. You have no warrant for it, I suspect.

Yet, you refuse to explain how this conductor interacts with the orchestra.

You can't say. I can't say. The whole field of neurobiology is unable to say. If you can say, you get the Nobel Prize.

If that were true, it would mean you could think without a brain

No, we've already established that mind and brain work in tandem. But we can't say how that's going on, because you're stuck in the physicalist paradigm, which has no resources for this question. It can only describe the meat. It can't describe what has been called "the ghost in the machine," the soul, the consciousness, the self, the intelligence, and so on.

Your insistence that determinism erases "you" because it ties identity to physical processes is equally ludicrous. Are you saying "you" vanish when the physical basis of your thoughts is understood?

Yes, "you" does. Because "you" are no longer importantly distinct from every other mere physical entity in the universe. They don't think, and neither do you. All that happens is molecules get pushed around, and some of them happen to be meat inside a cranium. But nothing else is really going on, so there's no "self" in there that's doing any work or producing any change.

Here’s the real consequence of your belief...

Well, since you're bent on mischaracterizing what you purport is "my belief," I can't take that criticism seriously at all. You're making up the belief, and thus the consequences are not of "my belief".

I've not said the brain does nothing. I'll say it again: the brain is somehow linked with consciousness in ways nobody understands, but everybody knows and acts as if is the case. In other words, there's something still to be learned about the mind-brain interface, and pretending we already know it, isn't science but reductionism.

So drop the reductionism. Any fair representation of my view will have a place for speaking about both mind and brain. But Determinism has only a place for the latter, and not much of that.

[Skepdick]

Yet, you refuse to explain how this conductor interacts with the orchestra. Does your non-physical mind float above the laws of physics, waving its immaterial baton to make atoms and neurons dance?

Please explain who wrote this text; and who keeps responding to this thread.

Is it you; or your brain?

[BigMike]

Immanuel, perhaps it’s time to set aside the notion of a free will or free mind and consider the profound implications of understanding ourselves as part of a determined universe. Instead of clinging to a paradigm that insists on a "ghost in the machine" while offering no mechanism or evidence, why not explore what determinism actually reveals about us—and the world?

Far from reducing us to mere "meat in a cranium," determinism enriches our understanding of humanity by situating us within the natural world, shaped by a complex web of causes that include biology, environment, culture, and experience. By letting go of the illusion of a non-physical "mind," we can begin to truly understand the factors that drive behavior, decisions, and actions. This understanding is not cold or dehumanizing—it’s profoundly humane, offering a framework for empathy, fairness, and justice that free will narratives often fail to provide.

When we acknowledge that human actions are caused, not freely chosen in some metaphysical vacuum, we gain the tools to address root causes rather than assigning blame. Why do people commit harmful acts? Not because of some intrinsic evil "choice," but because of a chain of influences—genetic, societal, psychological—that we can study, mitigate, and reform. Determinism leads to restorative justice, not retribution. It fosters compassion, not condemnation.

The deterministic view also levels the playing field of human achievement. It acknowledges that success often stems from circumstances—access to resources, supportive environments, fortunate opportunities—rather than purely individual effort. This understanding encourages systemic changes to create opportunities for all, rather than perpetuating myths of meritocratic self-determination that often justify inequality.

I think you’ll find, if you embrace determinism, that it doesn’t diminish humanity—it amplifies it. It opens the door to a fairer, kinder, more empathetic world, one where we understand ourselves not as isolated agents of free will but as interconnected beings in a determined reality. The answers you’ll discover might surprise you, but they will undoubtedly lead to a better world for everyone. Isn't that a goal worth pursuing?

[FlashDangerpants]

Trying to sell that thing like it's a used car

[henry quirk]

if you embrace determinism...it doesn’t diminish humanity

If any of us embrace determinism (and you've given us no reason to) it can only diminish humanity.

Convince a man he's just meat, convince him his fellows are just meat, and you will not create a fairer, kinder, more empathetic world.

Atrocity is all you'll get, in spades.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, perhaps it’s time to set aside the notion of a free will or free mind and consider the profound implications of understanding ourselves as part of a determined universe.

What the heck do you imagine we've been doing? Just that very thing, in fact. We've been talking about the consequences of Determinism.

Far from reducing us to mere "meat in a cranium," determinism enriches our understanding of humanity

It doesn't, actually. There's nothing "rich" about a Deterministic account. It's simplistic, flat and physical, and leaves huge, important swaths of human behaviour and experience totally inexplicable. If there's anything that does not deserve the adjective "rich," that might be it.

This understanding is not cold or dehumanizing—it’s profoundly humane, offering a framework for empathy, fairness, and justice that free will narratives often fail to provide.

Well, well...you'll definitely have to show that. The opposite is obviously easier to believe, namely that it eliminates empathy (for how can one be "empathetic" with mere molecular motion?) and fairness (which is a moral value, having no account in a physicalist universe), and, in fact, eliminates humanity (because it turns human beings into mere billiard balls on the table of physical action). So lets' see how you're going to work this minor miracle...

When we acknowledge that human actions are caused, not freely chosen in some metaphysical vacuum, we gain the tools to address root causes rather than assigning blame.

Ah. I've got it now.

You're hoping to use Determinism to escape the problem of guilt and personal moral responsibility. You're going to go for a kind of social or environmental Determinism, in which nothing is anybody's personal fault, there are no sins, and everybody's just a victim of the cosmos.

Why do people commit harmful acts? Not because of some intrinsic evil "choice," but because of a chain of influences—genetic, societal, psychological—that we can study, mitigate, and reform.

The Bible answers that question differently. It points out that human beings are fallen creatures, who are very self-willed and ready to excuse their evil by every means possible...including Determinism.

Determinism leads to restorative justice, not retribution. It fosters compassion, not condemnation.

Do you know who shares that fundamental anthropology? Marxists. And they've created more grotesque injustices, more cruelty, more exploitation and vastly more deaths than any other single force in history. So no, you're swimming upstream on that one. Not only does it not conduce to these things, it manifestly conduces instead to perverse elites taking advantage of ordinary people and trying to socially-engineer them into the society these imperious elites hope to create...no matter how many people it kills.

The deterministic view also levels the playing field of human achievement.

Only by recasting everybody as either helpless, oppressed victims or mere pawns of social re-engineering.

It acknowledges that success often stems from circumstances—access to resources, supportive environments, fortunate opportunities—rather than purely individual effort.

If that were true, then poor people would be evil, and rich, privileged ones would inevitably be good, since they have access to all the resources, supportive environments and fortunate opportunities. And is that what you see in the world?

I think you’ll find, if you embrace determinism, that it doesn’t diminish humanity—it amplifies it.

In every case, we find the opposite, in fact. There's no such society as you describe, and those that come the farthest distance toward compassion and fairness are, in fact, free will types of socieites, in which individuals have both oppportunity and responsibility for themselves, such as the US or the one-time UK, before it became a bed of Socialist corruption and abuse. And the most brutal societies are those that have a Deterministic, social-constructionist and non-responsibility taking ideology running them.

The answers you’ll discover might surprise you,

I think they'll surprise you, actually.

Isn't that a goal worth pursuing?

The goal of a better world? Absolutely. But we won't get to it through the door of Determinism. For human betterment, what we need is for everybody to take moral responsibility for what they choose to do, to make themselves accountable to the highest code of moral authority, and to make the personal choices that create that better world. It will never come by the means you suggest...and history bears that out in bloody spades.

And I mean bloody.

[BigMike]

Lots of things disappear if Determinism is true: mind, consciousness, choice, morals, values, beliefs, identity, self, truth, science...lots of things. They all get reduced to the mere "epiphenomena" of the brain doing its physical-causal thing.

Let me address each of your points:

1. Mind: Understanding the mind as a product of deterministic processes reframes mental health challenges as outcomes of specific causes—biological, psychological, or environmental—rather than personal failings or moral weaknesses. This perspective encourages a scientific, evidence-based approach to treatment, focusing on identifying and addressing these root causes. By removing stigma and blame, it creates space for compassion and targeted interventions, such as neurobiological therapies, cognitive behavioral strategies, or systemic changes to improve mental health outcomes. This shift not only benefits individuals but also promotes societal acceptance and support for mental health as an integral aspect of human well-being.
2. Consciousness: Consciousness, when understood as an emergent property of physical systems, shifts the focus from mystical or supernatural interpretations to scientifically grounded inquiry. This perspective frames consciousness as a complex outcome of neural activity and interactions within the brain, governed by physical laws. By demystifying consciousness, we can approach its study with tools like neuroscience and cognitive science, exploring its mechanisms and origins in a measurable, testable way. This not only advances scientific understanding but also reduces the influence of supernatural explanations, encouraging a worldview rooted in evidence and logic rather than speculation or dogma. This shift promotes clarity and progress in addressing questions about the nature of human awareness and existence.
3. Choice: When we recognize that choices are not made in a vacuum but are determined by prior causes—such as genetics, upbringing, environment, and external influences—it becomes clear that people’s actions are shaped by factors beyond their control. This understanding naturally fosters empathy, as it reframes harmful or misguided actions not as moral failings but as outcomes of a complex web of causation. Blame, often rooted in the belief that individuals could have acted differently in the same circumstances, loses its justification. Instead, society can shift toward restorative approaches, focusing on addressing the underlying causes of behavior, repairing harm, and preventing future issues. This perspective encourages personal growth and societal reform, emphasizing understanding and collaboration rather than retribution.
4. Morals: Under determinism, morality is no longer about enforcing blame or punishment based on the illusion of free choice; instead, it becomes a practical framework for enhancing well-being. When we accept that all actions arise from prior causes—biological, psychological, and environmental—our focus shifts from judging individuals to understanding the factors that shape behavior. This perspective enables the development of ethical systems aimed at reducing harm, fostering cooperation, and addressing root causes of suffering. By prioritizing outcomes over retribution, determinism leads to a more compassionate and equitable approach to morality, emphasizing collective progress over arbitrary standards.
5. Values: Values rooted in determinism arise from a clear understanding that all actions and outcomes are interconnected through cause and effect. This perspective naturally emphasizes evidence and reason as the foundation for evaluating what is beneficial for individuals and society. Instead of clinging to divisive ideologies or traditions that assume free will and moral absolutism, a deterministic worldview encourages values that promote the collective good. By recognizing the shared nature of human experiences and the deterministic forces shaping them, these values prioritize collaboration, empathy, and progress over conflict and division. This shift fosters a more unified and forward-thinking approach to addressing social, ethical, and global challenges.
6. Beliefs: Beliefs, under a deterministic framework, are understood as the inevitable outcomes of prior causes—cultural influences, upbringing, experiences, and exposure to information. This perspective challenges dogmatic beliefs by showing that no belief arises in a vacuum or through sheer willpower; instead, all beliefs are products of causation. Recognizing this can encourage critical thinking and a willingness to examine the evidence and causes behind one’s convictions. By prioritizing evidence-based perspectives over unexamined assumptions, determinism naturally undermines the rigidity of dogmas, fostering open dialogue and reducing the conflicts that arise from clashing, unsubstantiated ideologies. This shift can lead to more cooperative and informed societies.
7. Identity: Identity, when understood as the result of deterministic forces—genetics, environment, upbringing, and life experiences—challenges the notion that individuals are solely or freely responsible for who they are. This perspective reveals that traits like personality, preferences, and even behaviors are products of complex, interconnected causes beyond any individual's control. By recognizing this, society can move away from harmful stereotypes and biases rooted in judgment and ignorance. Instead, it fosters a deeper empathy for others' circumstances and a greater appreciation for the diversity of human experience. This shift encourages inclusivity and reduces divisions based on superficial or moralistic assessments of identity.
8. Self: The concept of self, when viewed through the lens of determinism, shifts from being an isolated, independent entity to a dynamic outcome of countless interactions and causes. Every thought, feeling, and action arises from prior influences—genetics, upbringing, environment, and external circumstances—all working together to shape who we are. This understanding frees individuals from the burden of unrealistic expectations, such as the notion that they must "choose" to be better or achieve perfection through sheer willpower. Instead, it fosters a sense of self-compassion, as people recognize that their strengths and struggles are part of a vast causal network. By embracing this perspective, individuals can focus on nurturing the conditions for growth and well-being, rather than blaming themselves for outcomes beyond their control.
9. Truth: Determinism fundamentally aligns with the pursuit of truth because it views all phenomena as the result of observable, measurable, and interconnected causes. By rejecting the idea of free will and metaphysical randomness, determinism shifts the focus to uncovering the actual mechanisms behind actions and events. This approach inherently values empirical evidence and logical reasoning over subjective myths, ideological narratives, or misinformation. In a deterministic worldview, truth becomes not just a moral ideal but a practical necessity for understanding and navigating the world. By grounding decision-making in objective knowledge, societies can address problems more effectively, fostering progress based on reality rather than illusion.
10. Science: Determinism underpins the scientific method by affirming that all phenomena have causes that can be understood and predicted through observation and experimentation. This belief in consistent, cause-and-effect relationships drives scientific inquiry, allowing us to uncover truths about the natural world. By rejecting the notion of randomness or supernatural interference, determinism ensures that science remains focused on evidence and rationality. This approach not only advances our understanding but also fosters innovation and problem-solving by providing reliable tools and frameworks for addressing challenges, from curing diseases to tackling climate change. Determinism, therefore, reinforces science as humanity's most effective means of progress.

[Immanuel Can]

Lots of things disappear if Determinism is true: mind, consciousness, choice, morals, values, beliefs, identity, self, truth, science...lots of things. They all get reduced to the mere "epiphenomena" of the brain doing its physical-causal thing.

Let me address each of your points:

1. Mind: Understanding the mind as a product of deterministic processes reframes mental health challenges as outcomes of specific causes—biological, psychological, or environmental—rather than personal failings or moral weaknesses. This perspective encourages a scientific, evidence-based approach to treatment, focusing on identifying and addressing these root causes. By removing stigma and blame, it creates space for compassion and targeted interventions, such as neurobiological therapies, cognitive behavioral strategies, or systemic changes to improve mental health outcomes. This shift not only benefits individuals but also promotes societal acceptance and support for mental health as an integral aspect of human well-being.

I've heard this kind of thing before. I'm sympathetic to your desire to create a better world, but beg you to consider the history of this kind of thinking, before you end up advocating repeating that history.

The problem with "reframing" a thing is that you must "reframe" it realistically, not ideologically, or you end up with abuses. Taking the sense of moral responsibility away from individuals does not improve their lot...it makes it immeasurably worse, because it recasts them as pawns of social engineering. If all that we are is attributable to our environmental conditions, then we have no power, no freedom, no options...whatever social conditions get issued to us by the elites, those determine our fate. And they are mere mortals -- albeit, usually unbelievably hubristic ones -- who then get to "social engineer" the masses for their ideological project, regardless of the cost. And it's all excused as "progress toward the good society."

If this were actually scientific, this would be a point in its favour. But it does not have any science in it...not even social science. If it did, it would take stock of the past of these sorts of projects. It has nothing but ideology, actually. And the historical record of such hopes is not just dismal...it's the most dismal record in human history.

Human beings do best when they take responsibility for their own choices, and answer for their own decisions. What you're suggesting deprives the ordinary man of responsibility and options, and empowers arrogant social-engineering elites to destroy them in the name of progress. This is a road we've seen often before...and it's a dark place to go...the darkest, in fact.

[*]Consciousness: Consciousness, when understood as an emergent property of physical systems, shifts the focus from mystical or supernatural interpretations to scientifically grounded inquiry. This perspective frames consciousness as a complex outcome of neural activity and interactions within the brain, governed by physical laws. By demystifying consciousness, we can approach its study with tools like neuroscience and cognitive science, exploring its mechanisms and origins in a measurable, testable way. This not only advances scientific understanding but also reduces the influence of supernatural explanations, encouraging a worldview rooted in evidence and logic rather than speculation or dogma. This shift promotes clarity and progress in addressing questions about the nature of human awareness and existence.

This all starts to sound like you're copying it from some kind of promotional material or propaganda. It's a little too tidy and paragraphed, and your own voice seems to have faded behind another...

Again, this is not what happens through Determinism. Determinism offers so little insight on these phenomena, actually, that it is forced to "reframe" them away from reality again, justs as with mind. It simply pretends they don't exist, because they don't fit the paradigm of physical causality. This truly does "demystify," but only by way of reduction and gross oversimplifcation of the data.

As for "evidence and logic," neither has any place in a Deterministic worldview, because "logic" is a cognitive function, a mind function, not a fizzing of synapses only. And "evidence" has to be perceived by a personal agent who recognizes it as evidence, and for good reasons. But the personhood of the observer has been banished by Determinism. And again, the science is just not possible by way of Determinism. All that remains is ideological possession, excuses, total personal irresponsibility and capitulation to totalitarian, social-engineering-ambitious elites.

[*]Choice: When we recognize that choices are not made in a vacuum but are determined by prior causes—such as genetics, upbringing, environment, and external influences—it becomes clear that people’s actions are shaped by factors beyond their control.

This is absolutely deadly. It teaches the world to think of themselves not as empowered choosers but as helpless victims. It fosters spite and envy, too, as they come to imagine they are the victims of injustices foisted on them by the system or the successful. And they become bitter, nasty, cruel and inhumane...just as they did in the Soviet Union.

This understanding naturally fosters empathy, as it reframes harmful or misguided actions not as moral failings but as outcomes of a complex web of causation. Blame, often rooted in the belief that individuals could have acted differently in the same circumstances, loses its justification. Instead, society can shift toward restorative approaches, focusing on addressing the underlying causes of behavior, repairing harm, and preventing future issues. This perspective encourages personal growth and societal reform, emphasizing understanding and collaboration rather than retribution.

Just like it did in Soviety Russia? Or East Germany? Or Romania? Or China? Or Cambodia? Or North Korea? Or Cuba? Or Venezuela? Or...

[*]Morals: Under determinism, morality is no longer about enforcing blame or punishment based on the illusion of free choice; instead, it becomes a practical framework for enhancing well-being.

Determinism has no moral perspective at all. So far as it is concerned, morals are not real. They're not physical, after all.

What actually happens is the cap comes off evil. Since nothing is ever my fault, and I am a noble victim, I can kill my "oppressors," or anybody who contradicts "my revolution" with impunity. There being no moral authority in the universe anymore, there is literally no limit to what I can convince myself to do to others.

This, too, is a matter of historical record, not of imagination. We know what happens when this worldview is adopted: not all the sugary promises, but rather gross inhumanity and death. 140 million people, in the last century alone, conservatively speaking, died on the altar of this ideology.

[*]Values: Values rooted in determinism arise from a clear understanding that all actions and outcomes are interconnected through cause and effect.

There are no values: all values are contingent, arbitrary and constructed, according to this dogma. And the conclusion drawn from this is that we can "value" anything at all, or "devalue" anything at all, up to and including human suffering and life itself. And we will never answer for what we decide to "value," since there is no final judgment to call us to account; so anything the system allows us to "value," we can get away with.

[*]Beliefs: Beliefs, under a deterministic framework, are understood as the inevitable outcomes of prior causes—cultural influences, upbringing, experiences, and exposure to information.

Not quite. There's no longer a choosing, learning human agent for them to "inform" or "teach." Instead, we're all robots to be programmed by the elites. And what one "believes" -- nothing could be more irrelevant to a Deterministic ethos; for belief does not change things, allegedly: only action, praxis, work changes things. So who cares what people "believe"? It's only obedience that matters. (Ironically this is a perspective shared not just by secular Determinists, but by Islam as well, which cares more for submission than for belief. In both systems, what one DOES is put ahead of anything one believes...so long as that belief doesn't interfere with the program.)

I'm going to pause here. It's clear from the format and tone that what I'm arguing with is not you. It's a piece of propaganda you've copied. And one can tell it is: look at the way it valourizes Determinism, attributing to it every good and benefit, and not mentioning a single detriment, problem, insufficiency or liability. This is an account shaped to lead the reader into polyannish trust of some kind of Deterministic social program, rather than the personal meditations of somebody thinking the issues through. So I could waste a lot of time simply pointing out the holes and untruths in it, but I'd be talking to an absent person, whomever the writer of the propaganda piece is, not you. And he isn't listening. It's clear from his over-sunny account of Determinism, he's not thinking reflectively, critically or historically at all. He's just "selling snake oil," and isn't interested in anything that does not fit the promotional material of his cause.

But I'll talk to you, Mike...there's just no use in me continuing to talk to whomever this is. He's not listening.

[BigMike]

Lots of things disappear if Determinism is true: mind, consciousness, choice, morals, values, beliefs, identity, self, truth, science...lots of things. They all get reduced to the mere "epiphenomena" of the brain doing its physical-causal thing.

Let me address each of your points:

1. Mind: Understanding the mind as a product of deterministic processes reframes mental health challenges as outcomes of specific causes—biological, psychological, or environmental—rather than personal failings or moral weaknesses. This perspective encourages a scientific, evidence-based approach to treatment, focusing on identifying and addressing these root causes. By removing stigma and blame, it creates space for compassion and targeted interventions, such as neurobiological therapies, cognitive behavioral strategies, or systemic changes to improve mental health outcomes. This shift not only benefits individuals but also promotes societal acceptance and support for mental health as an integral aspect of human well-being.

I've heard this kind of thing before. I'm sympathetic to your desire to create a better world, but beg you to consider the history of this kind of thinking, before you end up advocating repeating that history.

The problem with "reframing" a thing is that you must "reframe" it realistically, not ideologically, or you end up with abuses. Taking the sense of moral responsibility away from individuals does not improve their lot...it makes it immeasurably worse, because it recasts them as pawns of social engineering. If all that we are is attributable to our environmental conditions, then we have no power, no freedom, no options...whatever social conditions get issued to us by the elites, those determine our fate. And they are mere mortals -- albeit, usually unbelievably hubristic ones -- who then get to "social engineer" the masses for their ideological project, regardless of the cost. And it's all excused as "progress toward the good society."

If this were actually scientific, this would be a point in its favour. But it does not have any science in it...not even social science. If it did, it would take stock of the past of these sorts of projects. It has nothing but ideology, actually. And the historical record of such hopes is not just dismal...it's the most dismal record in human history.

Human beings do best when they take responsibility for their own choices, and answer for their own decisions. What you're suggesting deprives the ordinary man of responsibility and options, and empowers arrogant social-engineering elites to destroy them in the name of progress. This is a road we've seen often before...and it's a dark place to go...the darkest, in fact.

[*]Consciousness: Consciousness, when understood as an emergent property of physical systems, shifts the focus from mystical or supernatural interpretations to scientifically grounded inquiry. This perspective frames consciousness as a complex outcome of neural activity and interactions within the brain, governed by physical laws. By demystifying consciousness, we can approach its study with tools like neuroscience and cognitive science, exploring its mechanisms and origins in a measurable, testable way. This not only advances scientific understanding but also reduces the influence of supernatural explanations, encouraging a worldview rooted in evidence and logic rather than speculation or dogma. This shift promotes clarity and progress in addressing questions about the nature of human awareness and existence.

This all starts to sound like you're copying it from some kind of promotional material or propaganda. It's a little too tidy and paragraphed, and your own voice seems to have faded behind another...

Again, this is not what happens through Determinism. Determinism offers so little insight on these phenomena, actually, that it is forced to "reframe" them away from reality again, justs as with mind. It simply pretends they don't exist, because they don't fit the paradigm of physical causality. This truly does "demystify," but only by way of reduction and gross oversimplifcation of the data.

As for "evidence and logic," neither has any place in a Deterministic worldview, because "logic" is a cognitive function, a mind function, not a fizzing of synapses only. And "evidence" has to be perceived by a personal agent who recognizes it as evidence, and for good reasons. But the personhood of the observer has been banished by Determinism. And again, the science is just not possible by way of Determinism. All that remains is ideological possession, excuses, total personal irresponsibility and capitulation to totalitarian, social-engineering-ambitious elites.

[*]Choice: When we recognize that choices are not made in a vacuum but are determined by prior causes—such as genetics, upbringing, environment, and external influences—it becomes clear that people’s actions are shaped by factors beyond their control.

This is absolutely deadly. It teaches the world to think of themselves not as empowered choosers but as helpless victims. It fosters spite and envy, too, as they come to imagine they are the victims of injustices foisted on them by the system or the successful. And they become bitter, nasty, cruel and inhumane...just as they did in the Soviet Union.

This understanding naturally fosters empathy, as it reframes harmful or misguided actions not as moral failings but as outcomes of a complex web of causation. Blame, often rooted in the belief that individuals could have acted differently in the same circumstances, loses its justification. Instead, society can shift toward restorative approaches, focusing on addressing the underlying causes of behavior, repairing harm, and preventing future issues. This perspective encourages personal growth and societal reform, emphasizing understanding and collaboration rather than retribution.

Just like it did in Soviety Russia? Or East Germany? Or Romania? Or China? Or Cambodia? Or North Korea? Or Cuba? Or Venezuela? Or...

[*]Morals: Under determinism, morality is no longer about enforcing blame or punishment based on the illusion of free choice; instead, it becomes a practical framework for enhancing well-being.

Determinism has no moral perspective at all. So far as it is concerned, morals are not real. They're not physical, after all.

What actually happens is the cap comes off evil. Since nothing is ever my fault, and I am a noble victim, I can kill my "oppressors," or anybody who contradicts "my revolution" with impunity. There being no moral authority in the universe anymore, there is literally no limit to what I can convince myself to do to others.

This, too, is a matter of historical record, not of imagination. We know what happens when this worldview is adopted: not all the sugary promises, but rather gross inhumanity and death. 140 million people, in the last century alone, conservatively speaking, died on the altar of this ideology.

[*]Values: Values rooted in determinism arise from a clear understanding that all actions and outcomes are interconnected through cause and effect.

There are no values: all values are contingent, arbitrary and constructed, according to this dogma. And the conclusion drawn from this is that we can "value" anything at all, or "devalue" anything at all, up to and including human suffering and life itself. And we will never answer for what we decide to "value," since there is no final judgment to call us to account; so anything the system allows us to "value," we can get away with.

[*]Beliefs: Beliefs, under a deterministic framework, are understood as the inevitable outcomes of prior causes—cultural influences, upbringing, experiences, and exposure to information.

Not quite. There's no longer a choosing, learning human agent for them to "inform" or "teach." Instead, we're all robots to be programmed by the elites. And what one "believes" -- nothing could be more irrelevant to a Deterministic ethos; for belief does not change things, allegedly: only action, praxis, work changes things. So who cares what people "believe"? It's only obedience that matters. (Ironically this is a perspective shared not just by secular Determinists, but by Islam as well, which cares more for submission than for belief. In both systems, what one DOES is put ahead of anything one believes...so long as that belief doesn't interfere with the program.)

I'm going to pause here. It's clear from the format and tone that what I'm arguing with is not you. It's a piece of propaganda you've copied. And one can tell it is: look at the way it valourizes Determinism, attributing to it every good and benefit, and not mentioning a single detriment, problem, insufficiency or liability. This is an account shaped to lead the reader into polyannish trust of some kind of Deterministic social program, rather than the personal meditations of somebody thinking the issues through. So I could waste a lot of time simply pointing out the holes and untruths in it, but I'd be talking to an absent person, whomever the writer of the propaganda piece is, not you. And he isn't listening. It's clear from his over-sunny account of Determinism, he's not thinking reflectively, critically or historically at all. He's just "selling snake oil," and isn't interested in anything that does not fit the promotional material of his cause.

But I'll talk to you, Mike...there's just no use in me continuing to talk to whomever this is. He's not listening.

Your response is a whirlwind of assumptions, generalizations, and historical cherry-picking, wrapped in an unfounded hostility toward determinism. I’ve tried to engage with your points thoughtfully, but it’s evident we are speaking from completely incompatible frameworks. You’re clinging to a caricature of determinism—one where it strips people of agency and opens the door to dystopian horrors—and arguing against it with a fervor that feels more ideological than rational.

I've provided examples of how determinism promotes understanding, empathy, and evidence-based systems, but you dismiss these ideas outright, replacing them with the specter of "social engineering elites" and an Orwellian nightmare that exists only in your imagination. You don’t seem interested in engaging with the actual arguments or considering the possibility that determinism could lead to progress, not regression.

Frankly, I don’t think I can get through to you in any meaningful way. It’s clear that this is more about defending your preconceived notions than exploring new ideas. It is therefore better to let you, from my perspective, join your fellow science deniers and "brainless thinkers" and save me from wasting more of my time. You are hereby promoted to my growing ignore-list.

[Immanuel Can]

But I'll talk to you, Mike...there's just no use in me continuing to talk to whomever this is. He's not listening.

Your response is a whirlwind of assumptions, generalizations, and historical cherry-picking, wrapped in an unfounded hostility toward determinism.

That's too easy, Mike: you can slander the speaker, if you like; but it doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the argument.

I’ve tried to engage with your points thoughtfully, but it’s evident we are speaking from completely incompatible frameworks. You’re clinging to a caricature of determinism—one where it strips people of agency and opens the door to dystopian horrors—and arguing against it with a fervor that feels more ideological than rational.

I simply don't see a single case in history where what you were saying -- if, indeed, it was you saying it -- was ever true. And even Socialists, who are Social Determinists, admit quite freely that the society they claim to aim at has never existed. Of course, they never go on to ask why that would be, or to push the question of whether there couldn't be something deeply toxic in their beliefs...you see, they believe that history is only a litany of oppression, regression and backwardness, so we're all free to forget it...and "to imagine the future unburdened by what has been," to borrow an obvious quotation.

But history is not just a junkyard. It's instructive. And one of the key things it's instructive in is how fatally awful these sorts of Determinist utopian social-engineering projects have been: at minimum, 140 million deaths in the last century alone.

So we should listen to history, and science, and philosophy when they speak about these sorts of projects. One thing we can learn is that there is something deeply wrong with human nature, and that utopianism is not safe in its clutches. That is, if we don't want to keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

I've provided examples of how determinism promotes understanding, empathy, and evidence-based systems,...

And I've pointed out that it does none of these things, and given appropriate reasons for my objection to them. I'm sorry, Mike: what you're saying is just not the case. And history has demonstrated it in terms we do well to heed.

Frankly, I don’t think I can get through to you in any meaningful way.

If you mean you think you can't get me to agree with your claims, that might be right. But I've given good reasons why that would be so.

You can put me on your "ignore" list, it's true. But I wonder whether ignoring the problems of social-engineering utopias isn't the deeper problem here. Maybe you'll still remember that not everybody believes the promotional material of the Marxists, and maybe rethink things for yourself. Determinism would say you cannot: for what you will believe is predetermined by your chemistry, your biology or your social forces. But I think you can. I'm not a Determinist, after all.

Be well. Thanks for the chat. Not all good conversations have to end in agreement. I accept this as a good one.

[accelafine]

And we all know that whether or not something is scientifically true is determined by one's political persuasion FFS. There's no reasoning with someone who 'thinks' like that.

[attofishpi]

But I'll talk to you, Mike...there's just no use in me continuing to talk to whomever this is. He's not listening.

You can put me on your "ignore" list, it's true.

Just remember, if he puts you on his ignore list it was always going to happen since the Big Bang and if the same Big Bang happened again, that would happen again at precisely the same point in the causal chain of time.

What an idiot. (sorry Mike, but u r daft)